[95sniper]

Originally Posted by axxe55

while agree with your assessment of interpretations of the Bible and such, i think the founding fathers knew that some idiots would try and interpret the 2nd admendment from it's true meaning, so therefore they made it simple and concise. even small children have no problem understanding it, why do some adults?

i believe in no gun restrictions whatsoever, period. the one we have now are unconstitutionas as it is. there was a time when a person could walk into a hardwar store and buy dynamite. i don't think the average citizen should have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. nor do i think the average citizen needs them either.

the thing is all gun control laws are answers to problems that were never solved, crime. in the wake of stupid tragedies involving firearms of some sort, they get on the bandwagon and start trying to push more gun control on us in response to these incidents. they blame the firearms and the LAC is the one who is punished not the perpertrator or the criminals. time has proven that gun control laws, restritions and bans have been ineffectual in detering or preventing crime, and more restrictions or gun control laws will not change this one iota.

my simple belief is, "Shall Not Be Infringed". if they want restrictions or controls, they need to go to the source and that's the criminals. i think we all know the criminals are going to fully disregard any new laws as they have disregarded past ones.

In nc we cant have fire crackers

[therewolf]

I think the 2A is VERY CLEAR.

It encourages the public to form militias,

and clearly states we can use any weapons of

our own choosing, however we want, in

order to keep the nation secure.


It wasn't written for the convenience of

lawyers or politicians, but specifically

TO KEEP THEM in LINE...

[KG7IL]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

Anti-gunners are pretty thick out here on the left coast.

What I don't get are ones like my Brother In Law.
Loves shooting the AK, AR, G17 and such, thinks guns are great, but still voted for Obama on this issue. Thinks Obama would have already done something if he was going to.

[Pasquanel]

Sadly the 2nd amendment and the constitution mean absolutely nothing to this administration they have no need to ban anything they just legislate it out of existence!
This administration will over the next 4 years appoint 2 or 3 supreme court judges and the take over will be complete! Constitution? What constitution?

[therewolf]

I think we need to participate in the first part of the 2A, to

protect the second part...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the

security of a free state; the

right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

[Ruger22lr]

What do they not get by "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."? I mean honestly some people just do not understand. I support no restrictions at all. Because criminals are criminals and really do not care if it is legal or not. Obviously chemical weapons and WMD's should be illegal. I'm just talking about guns here.

[TNFrank]

Ditto, people that think laws and restrictions will stop criminals from getting guns are living in fantasy land. Criminals are CRIMINALS because they break laws. If we could pass a law and stop a criminal from doing "X" or "Y" then they'd not be criminals in the first place.
All restrictions and laws do is INFRINGE on a law abiding citizens Right to Bear Arms. I believe there should be Zero laws by the Feds restricting firearms.

[partdeux]

Originally Posted by Ruger22lr

What do they not get by "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."? I mean honestly some people just do not understand. I support no restrictions at all. Because criminals are criminals and really do not care if it is legal or not. Obviously chemical weapons and WMD's should be illegal. I'm just talking about guns here.

Where does one draw the line?

According to Tom Gresham on Gun Talk, Obama was heard to suggest that any firearm that has been used in a war environment should be banned... It was also suggested that cheap handguns should be banned?

It was suggested earlier that nuclear weapons wouldn't be included, but I still struggle with how to draw the line. Founding fathers couldn't have imagined some of the weapons that are available today...

IDK

[Vikingdad]

I think the line would be drawn where the government draws it. If they can be trusted not to use WMDs and/or chemical weapons against the citizens then we should be safe without them too. But can we trust them in that? So the question is not where is the line drawn. Is it?